Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Summary
An improved material-balance formulation is presented for determining original hydrocarbons-in-place (OHIP) in waterdrive oil
and gas reservoirs. The improved formulation reduces the number
of unknowns in the regression analysis through the definition of a
combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term (CARET). Field examples analyzed with the CARET formulation are presented illustrating the nonunique nature of waterdrive material-balance solutions
for OHIP. A method is presented for reality checking the best-fit
aquifer parameters obtained from the regression analysis. The
CARET material-balance formulation is shown to provide several
advantages over existing regression analysis techniques.
Introduction
Material-balance analysis of waterdrive reservoir performance to
determine OHIP requires a method for estimating water influx. If an
analytical aquifer model is used, the aquifer description must be
known or determined as part of the OHIP analysis. Havlena and
Odeh,1,2 Tehrani,3 and others have proposed material regression
analysis techniques for determining OHIP. These methods work
well when applied to volumetric reservoirs; unfortunately, they are
often less effective in waterdrive reservoirs. This paper presents an
improved regression analysis technique that works well in both volumetric and waterdrive reservoirs. In volumetric reservoirs, it simplifies to the solution proposed by Tehrani. Field cases are presented
showing that regardless of the regression analysis technique used,
the potential for nonunique OHIP solutions must be addressed
whenever an aquifer is present. Finally, a method is presented for
reality checking the analytical aquifer constant obtained from the
OHIP regression analysis to ensure that it corresponds to a reasonable aquifer description.
and the oil zone formation and water expansion term, Efwo , is defined as
E fwo + B oi
p i * pc f ) S wo c w
1 * S wo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
B gi S og E o
1 * S wg * S ogB oi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
and the free gas zone formation and water expansion term, Efwg , is
defined as
E fwg + B gi
p i * pc f ) S wg c w
1 * S wg * S og
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
mB oiE g ) E fwg
) E o ) E fwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
B gi
Theory
The general material-balance equation and its specific forms for waterdrive oil and gas reservoirs are presented below. The waterdrive OHIP
regression analysis techniques proposed by Havlena and Odeh1,2 and
later modified by Tehrani3 are summarized. An improved solution
technique incorporating the CARET formulation is presented.
General Material-Balance Equation. The general form of the material-balance equation with an analytical aquifer model used to estimate water influx is given by
. . . . . . . . . . . (1)
m+
GB gi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
NB oi
F + N ) U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
E og
E og
If the correct parameters are assumed for the aquifer model, a plot
of F/Eog vs. S/Eog should give a straight line with a slope equal to
the aquifer influx constant, U, and a y intercept equal to the original
oil in place (OOIP), N. A similar solution technique is proposed for
determining original gas in place (OGIP) in a waterdrive gas reservoir.
Tehrani3 Regression Analysis. Tehrani advocated applying regression analysis directly to Eq. 7 or 8 to determine values for OHIP
and the water influx constant, U. His approach requires multiple,
127
rather than simple, linear regression analysis and minimizes the regression error in the reservoir voidage term, F. In an example presented in Tehranis paper, this voidage minimization approach reduced the standard deviation in the OOIP estimate by a factor of five
compared with the Havlena and Odeh formulation. Tehrani also
found that voidage minimization gave results nearly identical to
those obtained from a direct match of the calculated vs. observed
reservoir pressure histories.
Proposed CARET Analysis Method. The CARET methodology
introduced in this paper combines Tehranis voidage minimization
approach with the simple, intuitive straight-line plots proposed by
Havlena and Odeh. The CARET equations are developed for the
van Everdingen and Hurst4 (VEH) unsteady-state radial aquifer
model, but may be easily extended to other analytical models. Relationships are also presented for sensitivity analyses of the aquifer
parameters obtained from the regression analysis.
Aquifer Constant Relationship to OHIP. The VEH aquifer influx
constant, U, is a function of the aquifers effective compressibility,
inner radius, thickness, porosity, and angle-open-to-flow5,6:
U+
1.1190c e r 2i h Af
2
q + 2c pr i h Af
e
5.615
360
q . . . . . (12)
360
hh .
A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
GB gi
.
1 * S wg
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
U + 2c e B gi h A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
G
1 * S wg h R
A similar method for expressing U in terms of G was first proposed
by McEwen7 as a way to reduce the number of unknowns in the waterdrive OGIP regression analysis. This relationship may be extended to an oil reservoir with a primary gas cap by defining the reservoir pore volume as the sum of the oil zone and gas cap pore
volumes. With the gas cap m ratio, the total reservoir pore volume
may be represented by
V pR + NB oi
1 *1S
wo
The variable ECARET in Eq. 18 is the combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term for a waterdrive gas reservoir defined as
E CARET +
2c e SB gi h A
) E g ) E fwg .
1 * S wg h R
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
E CARET + 2c e S
m
1
)
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg
hh
A
R
mE g ) E fwg
B oi ) E o ) E fwo. . . . . . . . . . . (21)
B gi
Eqs. 18 and 20 are the equations of a simple straight line. If the correct
values are assumed for the VEH4 water influx parameters a and rD , a
plot of F vs. ECARET should give a straight line passing through the origin with a slope equal to the OHIP as shown in Fig. 1. Simple linear
regression analysis can then be used to determine the best-fit values for
OHIP with the voidage minimization technique proposed by Tehrani.3
Aquifer Property Relationships. Once best-fit values for OHIP
and the aquifer influx constant, U, have been determined, it is important to confirm that the U value represents a realistic aquifer description. Each OHIP solution represents specific values for the
VEH dimensionless time constant, a; the dimensionless aquifer radius, rD ; and the VEH aquifer influx constant, U. The VEH aquifer
time constant, a, is defined in terms of aquifer properties as6
a + 2.3092
k
.
fmc e r 2i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
m
. . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
1 * S og * S wg
U + 2c B
m
1
)
e oi
N
1 * S wo 1 * S og * S wg
hh .
A
. . . . . . . (17)
8,490
256
0.21
3.5x10*6
2.9x10*6
0.46
22
3,300
0.23
360
100
Bg
(RB/Mscf)
Bw
(RB/STB)
8,490
8,330
8,323
8,166
8,100
7,971
7,905
7,900
7,883
7,858
7,854
7,728
7,675
7,623
7,615
7,600
7,550
7,446
7,400
0.5404
0.5458
0.5460
0.5516
0.5540
0.5588
0.5614
0.5616
0.5622
0.5632
0.5634
0.5684
0.5706
0.5728
0.5731
0.5737
0.5759
0.5804
0.5825
1.0518
1.0520
1.0520
1.0522
1.0522
1.0524
1.0524
1.0524
1.0525
1.0525
1.0525
1.0526
1.0527
1.0527
1.0527
1.0528
1.0528
1.0529
1.0530
p
(psia)
Gp
(MMscf)
Np
(MSTB)
Wp
(MSTB)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
8,490
8,330
8,323
8,166
8,100
7,905
7,854
7,858
7,900
7,971
7,883
7,728
7,550
7,446
7,400
7,600
7,675
7,600
7,600
7,615
7,623
0
1,758
5,852
10,410
14,828
21,097
26,399
30,042
32,766
34,548
37,590
42,446
51,117
57,697
63,678
65,432
65,613
67,593
70,688
72,226
72,943
0
2
3
66
98
138
180
215
237
257
282
314
375
420
465
475
475
477
484
488
489
0
0
1
3
4
7
9
10
11
11
12
16
54
153
433
715
753
1,042
1,237
1,575
2,383
Eq. 23 may be used with the best-fit estimates for U and a to calculate the corresponding value of the aquifer qhA product required by
the OHIP solution.
OHIP Solution Technique. The following CARET regression
analysis procedure is recommended for determining OHIP and the
aquifer influx constant in waterdrive reservoirs with radial geometries. The procedure assumes the reservoirs production and pressure histories are known and calculates water influx volumes with
the VEH unsteady-state radial aquifer model.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1996
FE CARET
100,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
CARET
F * F fit
n*1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
and F is the arithmetic average of the n values of F used in the regression analysis.9,10
4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for a range of rD values to determine the
rD value giving the minimum regression error, V, and the best-fit values for G or N. Use Eq. 15 or Eq. 17 to calculate the water influx
constant, U, from the best-fit G or N value.
5. Reality check the solution using Eq. 23 and the best-fit OHIP
and U values to calculate the required aquifer qhA value. If this calculated product of the aquifer angle open to flow and thickness
matches the actual aquifer description, the OHIP solution is reasonable. If it does not, re-evaluate the aquifer permeability and inner radius used to calculate the time constant or try another aquifer model.
Field Example
The field example considered here is a wet-gas waterdrive reservoir
with reservoir and aquifer data as summarized in Table 1. As shown
in Fig. 2, the fields production rate averaged 10 MMscf/D during the
first 6 months of production and reached a peak of 47 MMscf/D in
Year 6. The peak gas rate declined sharply after water breakthrough.
After 10 years on production, the reservoir pressure had declined to
7,623 psia, a drop of less than 900 psia, while the produced water rate
had climbed to over 4 MSTB/D. The reservoirs PVT data and production and pressure histories are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.
Constrained OHIP Solution. A CARET regression analysis for
OGIP was performed with the VEH4 unsteady-state radial aquifer
model and the calculation procedure outlined previously. To account properly for condensate production in the material-balance
analysis, the produced condensate volumes were converted to a gas
129
Fig. 3Waterdrive gas reservoir example CARET regression error and OGIP vs. assumed dimensionless aquifer radius.
Fig. 4Aquifer property reality check; aquifer permeability determines values required for the aquifer thickness and inner radius.
equivalent and added to the produced gas volumes with a conversion factor of 0.708 Mscf/STB.
Regression Analysis. Eq. 22 was used to calculate an aquifer time
constant of 6.893 years*1 from an aquifer permeability estimate of
22 md and an aquifer inner radius of 3,300 ft. CARET regression
analyses were run for 50 different values of the aquifer dimensionless radius, rD , spaced logarithmically between 2 and 25. An infinite-acting aquifer response was assumed for rD values greater than
25. The regression error and OGIP estimate for each assumed rD
value were plotted against the rD value as shown in Fig. 3. A best-fit
rD value of 7.7 was picked at the minimum regression error of 1.6%.
The CARET voidage vs. expansion plot for this best-fit rD value
shown in Fig. 1 yields an OGIP of 225 Bscf and an aquifer influx
constant, U, of 1,973 RB/psi.
Aquifer Constant Reality Check. To confirm the validity of the
OHIP solution, the best-fit aquifer constant value, U, was reality
checked with Eq. 23. Assuming an aquifer angle open to flow of
360, the required aquifer thickness was calculated to be 110 ft by
solving Eq. 23 for hA . This calculated thickness agrees reasonably
well with the map-based aquifer thickness estimate of 100 ft, confirming the validity of the OHIP estimate. Additional sensitivities to
the assumed aquifer permeability, inner radius, and thickness were in-
vestigated with Eqs. 23 and 22 by calculating and plotting the required aquifer thickness, hA , and inner radius, ri , as functions of the
assumed aquifer permeability, k. These results are shown graphically
in Fig. 4. Entering the plot with the estimated aquifer permeability of
22 md, the required aquifer inner radius and thickness are shown to
be 3,300 ft and 110 ft, respectively. This plot can be used to evaluate
uncertainty in the aquifer permeability estimate by entering the plot
at a different permeability value and reading off the aquifer thickness
and inner radius required by the OHIP solution.
Reservoir Pressure Solution. As an additional check on the validity of the OHIP regression analysis, the OGIP and aquifer parameters from the best-fit solution were used to backcalculate a material-balance reservoir pressure history from the reservoirs
production history. Fig. 5 shows the agreement obtained between
the calculated and observed reservoir pressure histories. The periods of increasing pressure correspond to the production rate decreases in Fig. 2. These reductions in the produced voidage rate allowed the aquifer to repressurize the reservoir partially. Once the
produced voidage rate again exceeded the water influx rate, the reservoir pressure history resumed its decline.
130
Variable Aquifer Compressibility. If Eq. 15 is applied to the solutions of Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani after the best-fit solutions
have been identified, it becomes apparent that these solution techniques effectively adjust the aquifer compressibility during the regression analysis to obtain the best fit. To show this, Eq. 15 was used
to backcalculate the effective aquifer compressibilities required by
the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani best-fit estimates of U and a for
each assumed rD value. The calculated effective aquifer compressibilities are plotted in Figs. 10 and 11 vs. the best-fit OGIP estimate
to which they correspond. The equivalent Havlena and Odeh aquifer
ce values were found to vary over an unrealistically large range, from
0.59 10*6 to 4,000 10*6 psi*1. The Tehrani ce values varied
over a similar range. In comparison, the CARET results in Fig. 7 honor the input ce value of 6.4 10*6 psi*1 for all OGIP solutions. Figs.
10 and 11 also show that the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani OGIP
solutions with the lowest regression errors correspond to the most unreasonable aquifer compressibilities. The equivalent ce value for the
overall best-fit Havlena and Odeh OHIP estimate is more than 600
times greater than the actual field estimate.
If the aquifer ce value is allowed to vary during the regression
analysis, the poorer fits associated with extreme values for the VEH
aquifer time constant, a, may be masked by unrealistic values for the
aquifer compressibility. This explains in part why the CARET regression error minimums are more pronounced than those obtained
with the Havlena and Odeh and Tehrani regression analysis methods. Although allowing the aquifer ce value to vary during the regression analysis is a valid solution technique, it introduces a hidden
variable and guarantees that the history-matched values obtained
for cw and cf in the aquifer will almost always differ from those assumed for the reservoir. If ce sensitivities are desired, the effects are
more easily seen by directly modifying the values assumed for cf
and cw in a CARET analysis.
Conclusions
1. The CARET formulation of the material-balance equation allows OHIP and the water influx constant, U, to be determined from
the slope of simple origin-constrained straight-line plot. The technique combines the benefits of Tehranis voidage minimization approach with the simple straight-line plots proposed by Havlena and
Odeh and allows a single plotting technique to be applied to both
volumetric and waterdrive oil and gas reservoirs.
2. If the VEH aquifer time constant, a, and radius ratio, rD , are
treated as unknowns in an unconstrained material-balance regression
analysis, the OHIP solution will be nonunique. At least one, and usually two, OHIP solutions may be found for any assumed value of rD .
A unique OHIP solution may be found by constraining the analysis
132
Fig. 10Havlena and Odeh1,2 OGIP solutions and effective aquifer compressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; effective aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.
Fig. 11Tehrani3 OGIP solutions and effective aquifer compressibilities for various aquifer radius ratio values; effective
aquifer compressibility varies between solutions.
E*01 +m3
E*03 +Pa@s
E*01 +m
E*02 +m3
+C
E*04 +mm2
E)00 +kPa
E*01 +kPa*1
SPERE
Acknowledgments
The methodology presented in this paper was developed and tested
with the support and encouragement of several people within Arco.
133